Cycle 25: No Global Warming - Mini Ice Age Is Next

Quote from Ricter:

I'm trying to confirm the article's assertion that "the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years" in this data:

Instrumental temperature record > warmest years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
More...

Good sleuthing. like I said, this article is crap and typical of the disinformation put out by the FF interests. Yes, one can say that annual temperature in 2008 is the same as the temp in 1988 and there was no warming between those points. One can do this by cherry-picking the years. But as we know it is the trend that counts and there can wide deviations around that trend. This is favorite tactic of the AGW disinformers.

This can be seen here


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png
 
Quote from pspr:

LOL :D

I have no desire to continue an AGW discussion with you since you cannot accept factual evidence. You can only see selected data and selected time frames to promote your incorrect assumptions. I'm sorrry but you are just too ignorant to continue to talk with on this subject.
More...

You haven't given any factual evidence except a chart of sunspot activity. I have no problem with that chart. While solar activity accounts for some of it, it remains a small contributor.

You think sunspots cause global warming but CO2 doesn't - that's ignorant.
 
future currents... you made a few suppositions on this thread.

Do you have any reason to believe man made co2 causes co2 levels to rise in our atmosphere? Based on what evidence?

1. you realize the earth off gases?

2. you realize that in the previous warming periods... warming preceded the building of CO2 in the atmosphere?
 
Quote from jem:

future currents... you made a few suppositions on this thread.

Do you have any reason to believe man made co2 causes co2 levels to rise in our atmosphere? Based on what evidence?

1. you realize the earth off gases?

2. you realize that in the previous warming periods... warming preceded the building of CO2 in the atmosphere?
More...


They know the extra CO2 is from man for several reasons. Fossil fuel contains carbon of a certain isotope that is different than the atmospheric carbon. It's an easy matter to see the ratio of these in the atmosphere.

The other thing is that we know approximately how much fossil fuel has been and is being burnt. It's simple a matter of math.

Yes CO2 and temp levels are interlinked and have positive feedbacks on each other. The co-dependency is so closely interlinked in the historical record that climatologists can not say which leads which, and it may be that most times temperature leads CO2 but that at other times C02 leads temps.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e-plot.svg/720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

One thing we know for certain is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the more of it in the atmosphere the greater the resistance to heat loss the atmosphere has. And the greater the acidification of the oceans.
 
can you support any of the above.

"Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCC’s 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/mauna-loa-co2-vs-emissions.jpg
"

In fact, it turns out that these large year-to-year fluctuations in the rate of atmospheric accumulation are tied to temperature changes, which are in turn due mostly to El Nino, La Nina, and volcanic eruptions. And as shown in the next figure, the CO2 changes tend to follow the temperature changes, by an average of 9 months. This is opposite to the direction of causation presumed to be occurring with manmade global warming, where increasing CO2 is followed by warming.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/mauna-loa-co2-vs-t-lag-correlations.jpg
 
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.


The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
 
Quote from jem:

can you support any of the above.

"Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCC’s 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/mauna-loa-co2-vs-emissions.jpg
"

In fact, it turns out that these large year-to-year fluctuations in the rate of atmospheric accumulation are tied to temperature changes, which are in turn due mostly to El Nino, La Nina, and volcanic eruptions. And as shown in the next figure, the CO2 changes tend to follow the temperature changes, by an average of 9 months. This is opposite to the direction of causation presumed to be occurring with manmade global warming, where increasing CO2 is followed by warming.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/mauna-loa-co2-vs-t-lag-correlations.jpg
More...

All that I wrote above is the current science and easily proven. Look it up.

Dr Roy Spencer is a hack that has zero credibility in the field and who's chief claim to fame is he is one of a tiny minority of AGW deniers so gets lots of press from the right.

"Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species.[31] On the subject, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . "


nuff said
 
Yes the temps may precede the CO2 historically. But the CO2 then accentuates the temp increase which then release more CO2. A very small change in temps results in this feedback which amplifies the temp rise. Repeat after me.....CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that is a fact demonstrable by simple physical chemistry experiments. CO2 has not been this high in over 20 million years. The much more difficult task is to explain why this would NOT result in rising temps.


Quote from jem:

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.


The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
More...
 
"Long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer has published another deeply flawed article. That ain’t news. What is news is that the deniers have a couple of new tricks up their sleeves.
First, the disinformers have figured out they should focus on journals that don’t seem to have a very deep understanding of climate science. In May, it was a paper in a statistics journal, which was ultimately withdrawn because of “evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process.” This time it’s an article in the open-access Remote Sensing co-authored by Spencer.
It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing — committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.



We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
So after that history, we’re supposed to savor all Roy’s new cookery?
That’s an awful lot to swallow.
Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But it remains hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Spencer lovingly, but to this day dismiss real science no matter how much it has been vindicated and verified by subsequent independent research."

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/?mobile=nc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top